Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

Regarding #1 & #2....Right, I'll still pay $90 per month. But instead of 200 channels at 45 cents each (on average), I'll be paying the 20 channels I want to watch $4.50 each (on average). Channels I like make more money (from me), channels I don't like don't get my money. What's the problem?

The 20 channels will only make more money if you pick the popular channels that everyone wants. If you pick unwisely, they get less money than now, close shop, and we all have fewer channels to watch. And still pay more than now...

Attached Thumbnails

As was mentioned in the Lakers thread, pretty much everyone pays but not that many watch. I know that is hard for sports fans of their team to grasp because they are so avid for their team, but the vast majority of consumers do not watch sports....yet that is the content that is driving the costs.

A good article on this from the L.A. perspective, but it's not limited to Los Angeles.

Not necessarily. I love sports but do not feel like everyone should be forced to pay for them if they have no interest. If the channels didn't demand so much, if individual leagues, conferences, and teams didn't create their own channels perhaps I wouldn't feel the same way. But I do understand how ridiculous the costs are.

How is this different from any other channel?

One can make the argument that the 85% of the cable subscribers that do not watch the Disney channel (the most viewed channel in cable) should not have to pay for the 15% that do watch it.

Most viewers watch about 5 to 10 channels regularly and yet pay for the hundreds of others. RSNs are no different.

One can make the argument that the 85% of the cable subscribers that do not watch the Disney channel (the most viewed channel in cable) should not have to pay for the 15% that do watch it.

Most viewers watch about 5 to 10 channels regularly and yet pay for the hundreds of others. RSNs are no different.

What is different is the cost. Most non-sports channels are in the $0.20 to $0.30 per viewer per month range, and ESPN and the new sports channels are in the $3.00 to $5.00 per month range. If there was not such a cost discrepency between non-sports and sports channels I would agree with you.

Why is it blindly assumed that ala carte would be worse for ALL consumers than the current system?

This is not a blind assumption. You and me both get probably at least 50 channels (besides the shopping/religious ones) that we rarely watch at all, and could actually do without if we had to make a-la-carte choices.

The owners of those channels are usually also ones that own bigger, more popular channels. They do not want to see their bottom line hurt, so if they were forced to do a-la-carte, they will prices the channels in such a way, that they will not lose profit, but actually GAIN profit. They are not going to go a-la-carte without a financial benefit, that much is CERTAIN in capitalism. And if the financial benefit is greater than selling the channels bundled, it simply means that we, the customer, shovel MORE money their way.

If you are an avid TV watcher, and watch all the popular channels, you may end up paying more than what you are paying now by having them bundled.

Bundled deals are always cheaper, not just with TV channels but in any retail situation where multiple things are packaged together as a whole. They are at the interest of BOTH the consumer, and the producer.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

Bundled deals are always cheaper if they have predominately what you want in them, and that is the reason the current pricing/packaging structure works for cable and sat services. And of course, there is the perceived value of having all those channels.

But if/when the cost of those rises to the point that a significant number of subscribers decide to lower or eliminate their packages, then the structure will change. It is only because we haven't reached that point that the way things are bundled now hasn't changed.

It's odd that some of these channels survive. There are a number of channels that have fewer than 100,000 viewers during primetime. Do the fees and ad revenues actually make these things profitable? And if you were an advertiser, why would you pay money to advertise on one of these?

.................... There are none so blind as those who can not see it in HD........... Directv customer since January 2000...........

And if your a fan of a niche channel you can forget them. If you thought SciFi becoming SyFy, Video Hits One becoming VH1, CourtTV becoming TruTV, The History Channel becoming History, Arts & Entertainment becoming A&E, Bravo! becoming Bravo, Headline News becoming HLN, American Movie Classics becoming AMC, or The Learning Channel becoming TLC was bad, wait to you see what happens to channels like DIY, Chiller, Cloo, Style, BBC America, TCM and the Discovery digital nets if they do survive

I would disagree. I think a la carte would go like this. Many channels have already gone to the lowest common denominator abandoning their initial mission even without a la carte. These channels would be priced relatively low because they now make money selling more ads. Lower viewed channels like BBCA, TCM, Ovation, etc. would probably have to charge higher rates. If they charge too high a rate and don't get a lot of subscribers, they will fail, same as any other channel. Channels need to be held accountable for their content. HBO proves that people will pay for quality content.

I realize channels would have a tough time selling ads when the number of subscribers is in flux so much so I propose moving to a small bundle system like Canada with sports not mandatory at all. Make the bundles have a six month minimum subscription period.

It's odd that some of these channels survive. There are a number of channels that have fewer than 100,000 viewers during primetime. Do the fees and ad revenues actually make these things profitable? And if you were an advertiser, why would you pay money to advertise on one of these?

There's two sides to that.... first, these channels are included in a larger deal, where the more popular channels "carry" the impopular niche channels along. That way the channels get the same exposure as their more popular brother channels.

Second, if a channel is profitable, it doesn't matter how many viewers there are. If you can make a "watch paint dry" show for $3,000, and have the 1 hour show repeat 24/7 for a cost of $10k a month, and you sell $9k a month in advertising, (which is incredibly, stupendously low, but a a few paint manufacturers might bite) plus $5k a month from carriers who are forced to pay the $0.01 this channel sells for as part of a greater package.... the company will walk away with $1,000 a month. Put $500 back in the channel, so that after 1 year you can produce a NEW "watch paint dry" show with a different color, and you still add $500 to the kitty.

These channels are mostly being leveraged by their bigger brothers. And I have tuned in to obscure, never-watched channels before because something caught my attention, and that is what channels are hoping for.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

There's two sides to that.... first, these channels are included in a larger deal, where the more popular channels "carry" the impopular niche channels along. That way the channels get the same exposure as their more popular brother channels.

Second, if a channel is profitable, it doesn't matter how many viewers there are. If you can make a "watch paint dry" show for $3,000, and have the 1 hour show repeat 24/7 for a cost of $10k a month, and you sell $9k a month in advertising, (which is incredibly, stupendously low, but a a few paint manufacturers might bite) plus $5k a month from carriers who are forced to pay the $0.01 this channel sells for as part of a greater package.... the company will walk away with $1,000 a month. Put $500 back in the channel, so that after 1 year you can produce a NEW "watch paint dry" show with a different color, and you still add $500 to the kitty.

These channels are mostly being leveraged by their bigger brothers. And I have tuned in to obscure, never-watched channels before because something caught my attention, and that is what channels are hoping for.

Hello maartena,

When can I start receiving the "watch paint dry" channel. I would even purchase a 3D TV to watch it if it was available in 3D. If not then in 1080p HD would be my second choice. My third choice would be 1080i HD. Nothing less for me!

Pick any channel, even the most popular one, and you will find there are more people do not watch that particular channel than there are those that do.

Sure, but at $0.03 a channel vs $3.95 a channel, the economics are more of a player because of the proportionality of the impact on the customer's bill.

That's why in my opinion the answer is some type of hybrid model. There are your core base channels that are less than (pick a number..$0.30 each or whatever) and then there are the high priced channels that become material.

It's odd that some of these channels survive. There are a number of channels that have fewer than 100,000 viewers during primetime. Do the fees and ad revenues actually make these things profitable? And if you were an advertiser, why would you pay money to advertise on one of these?

That's part of the dilemma these days causing execs to question just how many HD channels are worthy of supporting...but there's a thread for that already.

On this topic - what seems clear is that various Sports networks (ESPN, Comcast SportsNet, Regional Networks, etc.) are among the highest cost channels in the HD inventory. Since those costs are typically baked into the overall subscriber pricing (depending on which package one has), this trend will likely not change anytime in the near future.

I'm as big a sports fan as almost anyone else...but these rising costs are getting ridiculously high for those specific network packages.

The $0.20 - $0.30 would all go away in a la carte. They'd have 2-5% take rates, which would make them cost $10-15 minimum (probably more because there'd be no chance of serendipitous viewers ever seeing the advertising) at which point they'd then find the take rates were even lower.

It's a vicious cycle of doom, honestly.

The bundle makes those channels viable.

I'm not saying the current system is good. What ESPN and the RSNs do is force everyone to pay an awful lot for channels a lot of people watch more or less never. But they are just the most visible tip of the iceberg.

Every version of a la carte I've seen proposed results in less choice and minimal (if any) actual savings.

In the meantime, I'm fine -- even if not happy -- with a small RSN surcharge. If it helps end the mania around local TV sports rights fees, that's OK too. But if that's going to happen, get me the Pac-12 network for some price and let me buy it. And give me a Choice package that's a bit better trimmed down for a few dollars less. Let me have some actual choice even if we (me and DirecTV) agree that full on a la carte works for neither of us.

The $0.20 - $0.30 would all go away in a la carte. They'd have 2-5% take rates, which would make them cost $10-15 minimum (probably more because there'd be no chance of serendipitous viewers ever seeing the advertising) at which point they'd then find the take rates were even lower.

It's a vicious cycle of doom, honestly.

The bundle makes those channels viable.

I'm not saying the current system is good. What ESPN and the RSNs do is force everyone to pay an awful lot for channels a lot of people watch more or less never. But they are just the most visible tip of the iceberg.

Every version of a la carte I've seen proposed results in less choice and minimal (if any) actual savings.

In the meantime, I'm fine -- even if not happy -- with a small RSN surcharge. If it helps end the mania around local TV sports rights fees, that's OK too. But if that's going to happen, get me the Pac-12 network for some price and let me buy it. And give me a Choice package that's a bit better trimmed down for a few dollars less. Let me have some actual choice even if we (me and DirecTV) agree that full on a la carte works for neither of us.

No one is begrudging someone paying the RSN fee who wants the RSNs. The problem is people in these markets who are forced to pay this surcharge for them and do not want them.

The $0.20 - $0.30 would all go away in a la carte. They'd have 2-5% take rates, which would make them cost $10-15 minimum (probably more because there'd be no chance of serendipitous viewers ever seeing the advertising) at which point they'd then find the take rates were even lower.

It's a vicious cycle of doom, honestly.

The bundle makes those channels viable.

I'm not saying the current system is good. What ESPN and the RSNs do is force everyone to pay an awful lot for channels a lot of people watch more or less never. But they are just the most visible tip of the iceberg.

Every version of a la carte I've seen proposed results in less choice and minimal (if any) actual savings.

In the meantime, I'm fine -- even if not happy -- with a small RSN surcharge. If it helps end the mania around local TV sports rights fees, that's OK too. But if that's going to happen, get me the Pac-12 network for some price and let me buy it. And give me a Choice package that's a bit better trimmed down for a few dollars less. Let me have some actual choice even if we (me and DirecTV) agree that full on a la carte works for neither of us.

You do realize in Canada the CRTC regulates everything including what channels get licensed, their formats, a mandatory quota of Canadian content, as well as the class each channel is, which basically dictates how they can be offered and in what type of package. Only Category B channels can be optional (mostly specialty channels launched since the late 90s/early 2000s and many digital cable services), Category A is required to be carried by everyone and must be part of the tier that is one step above locals only (our equivelent of Expanded Basic), with the option to be in a higher tier at the discretion of the the individual channel, but the provider has to pay the channel extra to do it. The English language channels include:Bravo (Bravo if it stuck to its old arts format)Business News Network (Their version of CNBC)CBC News NetworkCMTCP24 (Only mandatory for the Greater Toronto Area, kind of like a NY1, News 12, FiOS 1 or Brighthouse 13 but not exclusive to one provider)CPAC (Their version of C-SPAN)CTV News ChannelDiscovery ChannelE!Food NetworkHGTVHistoryMTV (Since it's using the license of TalkTV, it only airs MTV's reality shows and the Movie Awards)MuchMore (Their version of VH1)MuchMusic (Their version of MTV if it still aired videos along with whatever scripted shows MTV has and the VMAs)OLN (OLN if it stuck to outdoor/adventure programming)OWN (In the list because it used to be Canadian Learning Television)Rogers Sportsnet (Their version of FSN or CSN)Showcase (Kind of like a TNT)Slice (Kind of like Bravo's current format)Space (Their version of Syfy)Teletoon (Their version of CN)The Comedy Network (Their version of Comedy Central)The Score (Their version of ESPNEWS)The Weather Network (Their version of The Weather Channel)Treehouse TV (Their version of Nick Jr or Sprout)TSN (Their version of ESPN)TSN2 (Their version of ESPN2)TVtropolis (Kind of like TBS)VisionTV (Kind of like INSP)W Network (Kind of like WE or Oxygen)YTV (Their version of Nickelodeon)

Digital Category A channels:bold (Can't really compare it to a US service, it has a lot of culture, drama and some sports from CBC)BookTelevisiondocumentaryFashion TelevisionG4 Canada (TechTV if it stuck to technology)H2ichannel (Kind of like Link TV)IFCMTV2Mystery TVOne (Kind of like what FitTV used to be)OUTtv (Kind of like Logo)The Biography ChannelTravel + EscapeTwist TV (In the list because it used to be Discovery Health Canada)

If Teletoon and YTV are their versions of CN and Nickelodeon respectively, then why did they launch CN Canada and Nickelodeon Canada

Nickelodeon Canada is a digital net that's a sister station to YTV, it has mostly cancelled Nick shows and some shows that YTV doesn't want to put on the main channel. YTV still has the first run rights to the more popular current shows like iCarly, Victorious and Spongebob. And as Joe said, CN Canada is owned by Teletoon and has a similar setup with Teletoon having first run rights to most content.

Nickelodeon Canada is a digital net that's a sister station to YTV, it has mostly cancelled Nick shows and some shows that YTV doesn't want to put on the main channel. YTV still has the first run rights to the more popular current shows like iCarly, Victorious and Spongebob. And as Joe said, CN Canada is owned by Teletoon and has a similar setup with Teletoon having first run rights to most content.

Family is often thought of as a de facto Canadian version of Disney Channel.

and Family is still a premium television channel but with out the premium price and on most systems it was part of some of the general theme packs.

Part of the problem with trying to design an intermediate "bundling" system is the consumer would have a different concept of what's a good bundle vs what the content providers want. Content providers want to bundle their own products together. What would make sense to consumers is thematic bundles of like content even if it includes 3 or 4 different content providers (say, Discovery, Science, Smithsonian, and NASA TV).

Part of the problem with trying to design an intermediate "bundling" system is the consumer would have a different concept of what's a good bundle vs what the content providers want. Content providers want to bundle their own products together. What would make sense to consumers is thematic bundles of like content even if it includes 3 or 4 different content providers (say, Discovery, Science, Smithsonian, and NASA TV).

NASA TV is a FTA channel and I thing on DTV it's some how counted as a PSA channel.